Restating, however, that the death penalty institutionalizes a model of justice with only retributive value, a model inherently flawed in its assertion that violence and killing are best dealt with by more bloodshed,

Concerned that the use of capital punishment prevents nations from taking steps to correct errors in their legal process, the most grave and final sentence having already been delivered,

Believing that life sentences and other alternative punishments better provide criminals with the opportunities to repent for their wrongs and improve their habits,

Asserting that justice is best served without the death penalty, for it is cruel, condemns certain innocent people to death, and rejects the affirmation that all sapient life is valuable by its very existence,

The General Assembly, at long last, invoking its august power in this present session assembled, and by the advice and consent of its delegates and member nations, hereby:

Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.

Mandates that member nations commute any death sentences handed down within their jurisdiction, and instead determine through their legal processes an alternative punishment,

Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.

Nega: "The Royal Republic stands opposed to this proposed legislation, as it would unilaterally impose your sense of justice on the rest of the world. The Government has chosen to leave this power to the provinces, and it intends for that power to remain with the provinces. While your government's desire to abolish the death penalty is surely commendable, allow nations to do so at the speed and manner which is appropriate for them."

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"Because...?"

"Simple, this is enforcing a vast capital punishment ban on all sorts of states, Fascist ones, Communist Ones, Monarchies, Anarchies even...We cannot tolerate this and we very much appreciate the World Assembly but this is a step too far."

"Simple, this is enforcing a vast capital punishment ban on all sorts of states, Fascist ones, Communist Ones, Monarchies, Anarchies even...We cannot tolerate this and we very much appreciate the World Assembly but this is a step too far."

Eternal Lotharia wrote:"Simple, this is enforcing a vast capital punishment ban on all sorts of states, Fascist ones, Communist Ones, Monarchies, Anarchies even...We cannot tolerate this and we very much appreciate the World Assembly but this is a step too far."

Yeah. Capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

"No that isn't that's an opinion, often by the left. Your statement is now pushing leftist beliefs on nations of vastly varying ideologies. We can't expect any nation that values international freedom of ideology to stand for this."

United Massachusetts wrote:Yeah. Capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

"No that isn't that's an opinion, often by the left. Your statement is now pushing leftist beliefs on nations of vastly varying ideologies. We can't expect any nation that values international freedom of ideology to stand for this."

Is freedom of religion a human right? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?

United Massachusetts wrote:How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

I've always liked this Robert Heinlein quote from Starship Troopers (the book, not that awful movie)

Colonel DuBois wrote:"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

Eternal Lotharia wrote:"No that isn't that's an opinion, often by the left. Your statement is now pushing leftist beliefs on nations of vastly varying ideologies. We can't expect any nation that values international freedom of ideology to stand for this."

Is freedom of religion a human right? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

"Then are you proposing a war ban? What about a suicide ban? Assassinations? Those won't exactly work. Yes you can mitigate both through other means, but it's impractical. This isn't a country, it's a multinational body, you can't dictate how we all work if you want to provide a unfying force for many varying ideologies. This specifically isn't even that extreme even as well."

United Massachusetts wrote:Is freedom of religion a human right? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

"Then are you proposing a war ban? What about a suicide ban? Assassinations? Those won't exactly work. Yes you can mitigate both through other means, but it's impractical. This isn't a country, it's a multinational body, you can't dictate how we all work if you want to provide a unfying force for many varying ideologies. This specifically isn't even that extreme even as well."

We do ban assassinations, first off. Secondly, wars can be just when they advance certain other criteria. This just war doctrine is crucial to Catholic social teaching.

Further, rights are secured against a government taking them away. Wherever possible, no government should deny man his fundamental freedoms, life among them.

It is always possible, and feasible for that mattter, to refrain from a death sentence. It is the WA's job to legislate on matters of securing human rights--it has done so before, and will do so again. We refuse to cater to the interests of genocidal communists, militant athiests, theocratic tyrants, or murderous fascists. Some ideologies are better than others.

United Massachusetts wrote:How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

I've always liked this Robert Heinlein quote from Starship Troopers (the book, not that awful movie)

Colonel DuBois wrote:"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

Of course there exist no absolute rights without exceptions. However, life is the most basic of rights:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38

Eternal Lotharia wrote:"Then are you proposing a war ban? What about a suicide ban? Assassinations? Those won't exactly work. Yes you can mitigate both through other means, but it's impractical. This isn't a country, it's a multinational body, you can't dictate how we all work if you want to provide a unfying force for many varying ideologies. This specifically isn't even that extreme even as well."

We do ban assassinations, first off. Secondly, wars can be just when they advance certain other criteria. This just war doctrine is crucial to Catholic social teaching.

Further, rights are secured against a government taking them away. Wherever possible, no government should deny man his fundamental freedoms, life among them.

It is always possible, and feasible for that mattter, to refrain from a death sentence. It is the WA's job to legislate on matters of securing human rights--it has done so before, and will do so again. We refuse to cater to the interests of genocidal communists, militant athiests, theocratic tyrants, or murderous fascists. Some ideologies are better than others.

United Massachusetts wrote:We do ban assassinations, first off. Secondly, wars can be just when they advance certain other criteria. This just war doctrine is crucial to Catholic social teaching.

Further, rights are secured against a government taking them away. Wherever possible, no government should deny man his fundamental freedoms, life among them.

It is always possible, and feasible for that mattter, to refrain from a death sentence. It is the WA's job to legislate on matters of securing human rights--it has done so before, and will do so again. We refuse to cater to the interests of genocidal communists, militant athiests, theocratic tyrants, or murderous fascists. Some ideologies are better than others.

"What about for Treason? Murder? Mass slaughter? Rape? Genocide?"

Yeah. We (either the WA in the case of rape and genocide, or reasonable nations in the other three cases) ban all of those as a means of protecting life, particularly the last one, since it is government-instigated.

EDIT: Are you asking whether the death penalty is a valid punishment for these crimes? For one, the answer is yes.

Yeah. We (either the WA in the case of rape and genocide, or reasonable nations in the other three cases) ban all of those as a means of protecting life, particularly the last one, since it is government-instigated.

EDIT: Are you asking whether the death penalty is a valid punishment for these crimes? For one, the answer is yes.

"Yes, those are crimes we desire to be punished for, as well as other extremely horrible crimes. As well, it may be needed to deal with corrupt officials. What about officials that may engage in power struggles for control of the government through political power plays, not direct rebellion? As well, genocide can be conducted by groups, not just governments. I.E. A drug cartel, an insurgent group, Terrorists, etc."

OOC: In IC Araraukar would resist this, since their laws actually have a law about how you basically sign away your right to life if you murder another. (Also has the same thing for treason, but that one's much more complicated.) OOCly I don't quite understand why executions should be banned (ignoring the "right to life" crap - see the quote Fris posted), if life-long imprisonment is still allowed. Life-long imprisonment, especially if it is necessary to keep the person in solitary confinement, is more akin to torture, especially as it ends in death as well.

Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

"Then you are heartless, and are pro-treason, genocide, and murder if you don't intend to punish them. If we can't torture them, if we can't kill them, there's no way we can create a deterrent stopping people from doing crime through fear." Yun Junmai snaps. "My own family was a victim of treason, genocide, and murder. This is a freaking multinational organization, not an empire!"

"Ambassador," says Feren, dusting off a really quite thick coating of dust from his hat, "Do explain why the Imperium should be expected to support the lives of treasonists, serial pedophiles and murderers, and, others who are unable to be safely returned to society?"

Having already presented its rationale in GA 4XX, The General Assembly bans member nations from employing a penalty of death for any crime, excluding war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Standing at 188 characters, I have fit an entire resolution into a tweet. I will be accepting further suggestions, especially those that decrease this abhorrently high character count.

"Full support, bit on the long side though. If you want to further reduce the character count, alter 'member nations' to 'WA states'."

A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seatsKenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issuesLocated in Europe and border France to the right and Spain belowNS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks

Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutionsThis is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracyHowever we do have a WA mission and often participate in draftingCurrent ambassador: James Lewitt